Key result
Low socioeconomic status linked to ~4% lower PCI use in STEMI but similar 1-year mortality.
Why the study?
Claims data had not been used to evaluate outcome differences between low and high socioeconomic status patients surviving STEMI and NSTEMI in the Netherlands.
Does low socioeconomic status affect revascularisation strategies, secondary prevention medication use, and 1-year mortality in patients with myocardial infarction compared to high socioeconomic status?
Observational (n=3,704)
Yes
Does low socioeconomic status affect revascularisation strategies, secondary prevention medication use, and 1-year mortality in patients with myocardial infarction compared to high socioeconomic status?
Absolute Event Rate: 80% vs 84%
p-value: p=<0.012
Low socioeconomic status is associated with lower PCI but higher CABG utilization and higher optimal medical therapy adherence in STEMI patients, highlighting regional disparities in myocardial infarction care.
BACKGROUND: To date, claims data have not been used to study outcome differences between low and high socioeconomic status (SES) patients surviving ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in the Netherlands. AIM: To evaluate STEMI and NSTEMI care among patients with low and high SES in the referral area of three Dutch percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres, using claims data as a source. METHODS: STEMI and NSTEMI patients treated in 2015-2017 were included. Patients' SES scores were collected based on their postal code via an open access government database. In patients with low (SES1) and high (SES4) status, revascularisation strategies and secondary prevention medication were compared. RESULTS: A total of 2065 SES1 patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 58% NSTEMI) and 1639 SES4 patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 63% NSTEMI) were included. PCI use was lower in SES1 compared to SES4 in both STEMI (80% vs 84%, p < 0.012) and NSTEMI (42% vs 48%, p < 0.002) patients. Coronary artery bypass grafting was performed more often in SES1 than in SES4 in both STEMI (7% vs 4%, p = NS) and NSTEMI (11% vs 7%, p < 0.001) patients. Optimal medical therapy use in STEMI patients was higher in SES1 compared to SES4 (52% vs 46%, p = 0.01) but comparable among NSTEMI patients (39% vs 40%, p = NS). One-year mortality was comparable in SES1 and SES4 patients following STEMI (14% vs 16%, p = NS) and NSTEMI (10% vs 11%, p = NS). CONCLUSION: Combined analysis of claims data and area-specific socioeconomic statistics can provide unique insight into how to improve myocardial infarction care for low and high SES patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hilt et al. (2023) conducted an observational in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (n=3,704). Low socioeconomic status (SES1) vs. High socioeconomic status (SES4) was evaluated on PCI use in STEMI patients (p=<0.012). Low socioeconomic status was associated with lower PCI use than high socioeconomic status in STEMI (80% vs 84%, p<0.012) and NSTEMI (42% vs 48%, p<0.002) patients, but 1-year mortality was similar.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: